Cessna 162 Skycatcher???

Yea they sure designed that plane funny. It has the body of a modified kit fox, panel of a squished cirrus, and who in the world thought it'd be cool to take out the back window? Thats one of the neatest views!
 
Cool, good to see they're moving forward. Glass cockpit, too! I thought they were leaning towards the Rotax 912, but it appears they've gone with the 100hp Continental O200.

The first 1000 units are $109,500, after that $111,500, adjusted at time of delivery for CPI cost increases. They were going to TRY to get the cost under $100K; looks like even Cessna couldn't make that happen.

The photos on the main page show a dual-screen glass cockpit, but the contract set specifies a single-screen setup. If there's mention of the upgrade cost for dual-screen, I didn't see it.
 
Last edited:
Tristar said:
who in the world thought it'd be cool to take out the back window? Thats one of the neatest views!
Click to expand...

Well, it looks a if they added a skylight. Not the same, I know, but...


--- having just said that, I didn't see it apparent at the dealer rollout, so...
 
Don't tell me this isn't a cool feeling trying to take a pic like this!. Some how it almost looks like they took a Cessna 140, took the tail wheel off and made it out of composites.

img1307uw4.jpg
 
Last edited:
Troy Whistman said:
They were going to TRY to get the cost under $100K; looks like even Cessna couldn't make that happen.
Click to expand...

Here's why:

Troy Whistman said:
The photos on the main page show a dual-screen glass cockpit, but the contract set specifies a single-screen setup. If there's mention of the upgrade cost for dual-screen, I didn't see it.
Click to expand...

I may have it all wrong, but I thought LSAs existed to fill a price nich, not a technology niche. Wouldn't steam gauges get the cost under $100K?
 
JohnR said:
I may have it all wrong, but I thought LSAs existed to fill a price nich, not a technology niche. Wouldn't steam gauges get the cost under $100K?
Click to expand...

I would be surprised if one couldn't produce a glass cockpit cheaper then steam gauges if setup right (FAA makes this tricky). There are way fewer moving parts and way less crap to be built with glass. Perhaps Cessna was able to work a deal with Garmin--if so--I could see the glass being the way to go.
 
Cool enough little puddle-jumper.
Worth about $1/2 what they're charging, which is typical of FAA certified aircraft.
 
You can buy an Experimental glass box for about $3-5k, which isn't significantly different from mechanical gauges in price, but a certificated glass system runs way over $10k. You do not need a certificated system in an LSA, by the way.

In fact, here is all you need:

cubdash.jpg


And if you don't need the white face "Cub" versions, you can spend under $2k on this panel.
 
Dave Krall CFII said:
Cool enough little puddle-jumper.
Worth about $1/2 what they're charging, which is typical of FAA certified aircraft.
Click to expand...
It's even worse than that - it only has to meet ASTM consensus standards, not part 23, or have a Type Certificate.
 
I wish some of these companies would take heed of Piper's theory when they were marketing the Cub -- "...a plane in every garage..." - or something like that. It ain't gonna happen with $100k+ planes.
 
I gotta go with Ken on this one. That's pretty, well, ugly. Maybe it has a good personality?
 
CJones said:
I wish some of these companies would take heed of Piper's theory when they were marketing the Cub -- "...a plane in every garage..." - or something like that. It ain't gonna happen with $100k+ planes.
Click to expand...
I've said it before and I'll say it again ...

If it costs as much as a HOUSE, it's neither inexpensive NOR affordable!!!!
 
etsisk said:
I've said it before and I'll say it again ...

If it costs as much as a HOUSE, it's neither inexpensive NOR affordable!!!!
Click to expand...
Even if it were affordable, I'd buy the plane first. You can't fly a house! :no:


:goofy:
 
In 1977, a brand new C150 was $13,950. Median income for all households that year was $13,570.

In 2006 median household income was $59,600.

'Nuff said.
 
etsisk said:
I've said it before and I'll say it again ...

If it costs as much as a HOUSE, it's neither inexpensive NOR affordable!!!!
Click to expand...
I can assure you, it does not cost as much as a house. At not any house in this area.
 
JohnR said:
In 1977, a brand new C150 was $13,950. Median income for all households that year was $13,570.

In 2006 median household income was $59,600.

'Nuff said.
Click to expand...
Let's see... if I recall, the 2006 C-172S with Nav III was around $245,000 for the local school.

I'm curious of something I cannot tell from the literature other than it's not certified for IFR. Would this bird be usable for a student pilot to fly VFR XC in?
 
Skycatcher? Why not Dreamcatcher? Matches Boeing Dreamliner.

It would bring a chuckle to others if they called it the Chickenhawk (Smaller than a Skyhawk)
 
KennyFlys said:
I'm curious of something I cannot tell from the literature other than it's not certified for IFR. Would this bird be usable for a student pilot to fly VFR XC in?
Click to expand...
LSAs are not certified for IFR because they're not certified. If equipped/inspected per Part 91 AND if IFR is not specifically prohibited by the manufacturer in the operating limitations, you can IFR away.
 
Is it just me or is that a silly name?
 
I'm curious why anyone would pay that much for something with such
a dismal useful load. It'd be difficult to use for a flight school.
 
Move the wheel to the back and that might be interesting...
 
useful load is no worse than a 150 and look at all those flying around.

a little legal system reform would bring the price down to well below 100K.

i want to fly one.
 
RogerT said:
I'm curious why anyone would pay that much for something with such a dismal useful load. It'd be difficult to use for a flight school.
Click to expand...
That's just the limitation placed on LSAs. So, if you're a somewhat heavier pilot, you won't get far with a passenger and remaining useful load tied up with a little baggage and fuel.

To follow along with what Tony said, it's sort of an advanced version of the 152.

As far as IFR, I realize it's not certified as such. But, it is a realitively decent price for a glass panel aircraft. So, if were allowed for use by a private student for solo practice, solo VFR XC and by a certificated private student building time toward commercial requirements, I think a school would get their money's worth out of one as a training tool.

Maybe I'm wrong. It's just a thought.
 
The Diamond DA20s aren't IFR certified and there are lots of flight schools using those. I see no reason that flight schools won't this plane equally appealing.

Well... Except for it's dumb name. :rolleyes:
 
JohnR said:
It could have been called the Fairey Flycatcher. :)
Click to expand...
Too late to use that name... it was the design project code name for the SR-22. :D

Okay, my earlier question is answered again in AVweb Flash...
Cessna is taking $10,000 deposits at the show, and Pelton expects many orders from Cessna Pilot Centers (CPCs) since the airplane is targeted toward the training market. EAA is the launch customer for the new Cessna model, with the first production airplane going to the association's Young Eagles program and the second airplane to the EAA Flight Academy. Cessna is working on an FITS-approved SkyCatcher flight-training program for both sport and private-pilot courses.
Click to expand...
But, in the paperwork available from the Cessna web site, the current deposit amount is $5,000.
 
i suppose he also expects lots of orders from CPCs because cessna requires all CPCs to keep a new model Cessna on the line and this is less than half the price of a 172
 
tonycondon said:
i suppose he also expects lots of orders from CPCs because cessna requires all CPCs to keep a new model Cessna on the line and this is less than half the price of a 172
Click to expand...

Exactly. To remain a CPC you must have a Cessna airplane no older than 2 years old available for rent. It's not easy getting someone to spring for a $250,000 172.
 
of course now there will be a huge dropoff in sales of new 172s
 
If it came down to paying 100K for the Skycatcher, Legend Cub or Cub Crafters J3, I'd go with the Skycatcher. Its a new design, not just an updated version of a 70 year old one. The retro cubs are WAY over priced.
 
Dean said:
If it came down to paying 100K for the Skycatcher, Legend Cub or Cub Crafters J3, I'd go with the Skycatcher. Its a new design, not just an updated version of a 70 year old one. The retro cubs are WAY over priced.
Click to expand...

Using a 70 year old power plant...carburated engine :(
 
Just got a text message from a friend who's at OSH... he says Cessna took deposits on over 300 of the 162's today... not bad for an "ugly airplane with a stupid name"!
 
Dean said:
If it came down to paying 100K for the Skycatcher, Legend Cub or Cub Crafters J3, I'd go with the Skycatcher. Its a new design, not just an updated version of a 70 year old one. The retro cubs are WAY over priced.
Click to expand...
And WAY more useful :yes:
 
I just got my Special Oshkosh Edition ePilot newsletter from AOPA and this was a couple entries below the Cessna:

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]CIRRUS TO OFFER ITS OWN LSA MODEL
[/FONT]
070723cirrus.jpg
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]Cirrus Design joined the light sport aircraft (LSA) fray with the announcement that it will be importing and "Cirrus-izing" a German microlight built in Poland. The airplane that will become the Cirrus SRS was designed by Peter Funk, founder of Fk Lightplanes. Known in Europe as the Fk 14 Polaris, the two-place canopied airplane is powered by a Rotax 912 engine. In order to bring the airplane into compliance with U.S. LSA rules, it must be slowed down to 120 knots from the current cruise of about 130 knots. As it exists today, the Fk 14 is a sporty handling airplane and it must be made more appropriate for the training market, according to Cirrus officials. The airplane will be built in Poland and reassembled in the United States. First deliveries should occur in about a year, and the price will be about $100,000. For more, see our Oshkosh news page.[/FONT]




[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]I think I'd rather have the original Polaris, but then again I have a medical.
[/FONT]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top